Author
Topic: Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6 (Read 18629 times)

5.6/200 seems strange for common photography but might be designed for special purposes. It is not compact and doesn't have the lens config for an internal focusing macro lens nor some symmetric lens arrangement which is typical for all macro setups (more or less).

A low number of lens elements means very low transmission losses and very high contrast - perhaps it is a lens for bright contralight conditions. The two plane front elements might be a protective cover to allow the use if that lens unter harsh conditions.=> perhaps a lens for movie/video productions?=> perhaps a lens for video surveillance?

But if it is very contrasty, flare resistant and rugged - it might be the lens for contralight landscape and closeup for me!

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....

I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.

The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.

I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.

I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....

I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.

Think 8-10k is too high. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is ~7k, and Canon's 400 f/2.8 is 11.5k. I would expect the 400 f/4 price to be well below Nikon's excellent 200-400 f/4. Given the ratio between Canon's 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the 300mm (7300 vs. 1400), one might expect that the the 400 f/4 might cost closer to 2-3k. If it's 8-10k, most people might consider saving up a little more for the 400 f/2.8.

canon rumors FORUM

Asposium

from an optical point of view, taking the 200 f/2 and the 300 f2.8 as an example, as the focal length increases from 200 to 300 the "speed" of the lens drops by one stop, whereas the diameter of the front optical stays pretty much constant.

the price of the 200 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 (mark one IS) were quite similarthe weight of the two was quite similar and the 300 slightly longer

continuing the trend to a 400 f/4

it would not be unreasable for the following to be true...the 400 f/4 would be a similar diameter to the 200 and 300 and weigh about the samethe 400 f/4 would be slightly longer than the 300the 400 f/4 would cost about the same, to a rough order of magnitude.

I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....

I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.

When you get to lenses of that caliber, the only real significant cost to design is the optics. Some of those lenses require HUGE elements that have to be perfect across their entire volume, and often require a lot of element groups with a high number of total elements. In the case of the DO lens, there is one very expensive element group (the DO group)...however because of that Canon was able to eliminate a lot of other corrective groups that would have otherwise been necessary...at the cost of maximum resolution (the diffraction is going to etch away at it a little bit.) Given the size that a 400/4 lens would need to be (larger by a fair amount than the DO version), and the optical corrections that would have to be performed to keep IQ at 500/600 L II levels...there are simply going to be more big, expensive lens elements.

Think 8-10k is too high. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is ~7k, and Canon's 400 f/2.8 is 11.5k. I would expect the 400 f/4 price to be well below Nikon's excellent 200-400 f/4. Given the ratio between Canon's 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the 300mm (7300 vs. 1400), one might expect that the the 400 f/4 might cost closer to 2-3k. If it's 8-10k, most people might consider saving up a little more for the 400 f/2.8.

Now, its certainly possible for Canon to create a 400/4 that does not have 500/600 L II level IQ...but why? They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ (which is minor, at that...look at Art Morris' bird shots with that lens...they are stunning; the notion that IQ is rendered useless by the DO element is largely myth). If Canon creates a 400mm f/4 L IS lens, it seems logical that they would make it a high quality, top-end lens lacking nothing. If its not a DO lens, then they don't have the diffractive optics corrective benefits...so they are going to have to correct optical aberrations another way (i.e. UD and flourite elements, multiple corrective groups, etc.), and that'll increase cost. Personally I think it'll land around $8000, maybe $7500...f/4 @ 400mm isn't quite as much a feat as a 500mm f/4 lens....but its still going to be expensive.

200mm f5.6. Two possibilities come to mind immediately for that aperture and focal length.

1) It's for a extremely high resolution lens, with absolutely no chromatic aberration or distortion. Something like the Zeiss Superachromatic designs of the 1960s. Many say their sharpness has never been matched and give stunning results in black and white and in color (although it's too sharp and unforgiving for flattering portraits). Can also be used for IR photography as the focus is the same across a wide range of wavelengths. Notable for it's six element design with one achromatic pair.http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/pdf/lds/CF250SA.pdf

Bloody brilliant. With 6 elements in 5 groups it could certainly be pretty small, light, & cheap if they wanted to. It's true that f/5.6 ain't that great but if it was razor sharp wide-open & had good IS then I'd certainly want to have one in my coat pocket whenever I'm out shooting.

I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....

I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.

When you get to lenses of that caliber, the only real significant cost to design is the optics. Some of those lenses require HUGE elements that have to be perfect across their entire volume, and often require a lot of element groups with a high number of total elements. In the case of the DO lens, there is one very expensive element group (the DO group)...however because of that Canon was able to eliminate a lot of other corrective groups that would have otherwise been necessary...at the cost of maximum resolution (the diffraction is going to etch away at it a little bit.) Given the size that a 400/4 lens would need to be (larger by a fair amount than the DO version), and the optical corrections that would have to be performed to keep IQ at 500/600 L II levels...there are simply going to be more big, expensive lens elements.

Think 8-10k is too high. Nikon's 200-400 f/4 is ~7k, and Canon's 400 f/2.8 is 11.5k. I would expect the 400 f/4 price to be well below Nikon's excellent 200-400 f/4. Given the ratio between Canon's 2.8 and 4.0 versions of the 300mm (7300 vs. 1400), one might expect that the the 400 f/4 might cost closer to 2-3k. If it's 8-10k, most people might consider saving up a little more for the 400 f/2.8.

Now, its certainly possible for Canon to create a 400/4 that does not have 500/600 L II level IQ...but why? They already have the 400/4 DO to cover that spot, in a much smaller lens body with much lower weight, and is otherwise a superb lens outside of the limit on resolution and IQ (which is minor, at that...look at Art Morris' bird shots with that lens...they are stunning; the notion that IQ is rendered useless by the DO element is largely myth). If Canon creates a 400mm f/4 L IS lens, it seems logical that they would make it a high quality, top-end lens lacking nothing. If its not a DO lens, then they don't have the diffractive optics corrective benefits...so they are going to have to correct optical aberrations another way (i.e. UD and flourite elements, multiple corrective groups, etc.), and that'll increase cost. Personally I think it'll land around $8000, maybe $7500...f/4 @ 400mm isn't quite as much a feat as a 500mm f/4 lens....but its still going to be expensive.

@jrista, It'll be interesting to see how good the 200-400 f/4 is. If the Canon 400 f/4 is priced so similarly to the Nikon 200-400 f/4 (7k) and assuming that the upcoming Canon 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x TC is competitive with the Nikon version, then that sets a ceiling for how much a prime 400 f/4 is worth. If it's at 7k or above, I can't see the 400 f/4 being successful in the marketplace. The 400 f/2.8 is tops at this focal range. The 400 f/4 won't match the f/2.8 and probably shouldn't be priced at 70% of the f/2.8's price. I'd rather have the 200-400mm rather than the 400 f/4 if they are similar in price. Can't really compare lenses at 500mm or above, because f/4 is the widest offering there is.

@jrista, It'll be interesting to see how good the 200-400 f/4 is. If the Canon 400 f/4 is priced so similarly to the Nikon 200-400 f/4 (7k) and assuming that the upcoming Canon 200-400 f/4 with 1.4x TC is competitive with the Nikon version, then that sets a ceiling for how much a prime 400 f/4 is worth. If it's at 7k or above, I can't see the 400 f/4 being successful in the marketplace. The 400 f/2.8 is tops at this focal range. The 400 f/4 won't match the f/2.8 and probably shouldn't be priced at 70% of the f/2.8's price. I'd rather have the 200-400mm rather than the 400 f/4 if they are similar in price. Can't really compare lenses at 500mm or above, because f/4 is the widest offering there is.

Aye, I guess the 200-400/4 will really be a driver of any 400/4's price. Personally, even if the 400/4 was fairly cheap, I would probably still opt for the 200-400/4. Its built-in togglable teleconverter is an extremely handy little feature, and I like having the versatility of zoom...means a lot less moving around. Its not way out of the ball park of "eventual affordability" if your a saver, either, at $7000 (where as the 400/2.8, 500, 600, and 800mm lenses are). I didn't consider that in my analysis, but I guess I too would be surprised if any 400/4 was more than that...throwing the 200-400 into the mix, I think it would at most have to be about the same price as the 400/4 DO.